Are available Supreme Court Decisions equipped to deal with emerging technological advances

The surfacing of new technologies used in fighting crime and the constitutional questions they raise warrants a new approach to these technologies in trying to protect individual rights while at the same time fighting crime. For the last few decades, the Court system has been struggling with the issue of technological advances and their constitutionality. Courts have not only been cautious of the role played by technological devices, but general public interest and maintaining the rule of law in every scenario. Technological advances involving the use of gun detectors, use of less lethal weapons, monitoring of email communication have sparked controversy all over the U.S. In addition, warrant requirements for searches/seizures in cyberspace have been delved into by the Supreme Court. Use of Gun Detectors Emergence of new technologies such as metal and gun detectors and the test of their constitutionality has led to a fresh overview of the functions of the handgun in the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Courts have always dealt with the issue of weapon searches as they have always been wary of departing from the constitutional requirement that searches can only be conducted in the presence of a warrant occasioned by probable cause. The Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio showed a laxity to institute the prerequisite for conducting a search when the aim of the search is recovery of a hidden gun. The Supreme Court unwillingly relaxed this requirement with a view to uphold Terry’s rights according to the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court acknowledges that weapons searches and examinations of suspects holding illegal guns are paramount to protecting both the public and the police during street interrogations. In addition, the Court approved the “pat down’ system in determining whether a suspect is in possession of a handgun as it saw this system as a less intrusive way of conducting searches. We note that there are currently unlimited weapon searches places at points of entry such as airports and institutions including courthouses and schools. Gun detection in these places is on different contexts, but aims at achieving a universal goal, however, in the course of gun weapons searches, other contraband are discovered, which are later used as evidence against the defendants, even if a gun was not discovered (Johnson, p. 199). The current use of gun detection measures, which are deemed less invasive, such as pat downs are rather ineffective in detection, this warrants the use of metal and gun detectors based on less than probable cause, which has been approved by the Court. The Supreme Court advocates for the use of gun detectors that serve to distinguish those carrying a gun from those who are not while at the same time not providing any additional information on the person being screened. This will ensure law enforcers are able to detect concealed weapons while protecting civil freedom. In street interrogations, the Supreme Court on Terry v. Ohio exemplifies the Fourth Amendment as meaning that seizure or searches, based on probable cause, conducted without issuance of warrants are a violation of a person’s civil liberty and thus the search results are inadmissible in court. While the Court acknowledges that searches based on probable